Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 09:26:52 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Hanno Liem <freebsd@dark4ce.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: To jail or not to jail, that is the question Message-ID: <20011019092652.A62301@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20011019172854.G85163@dark4ce.com>; from freebsd@dark4ce.com on Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:28:54PM %2B0200 References: <20011018094726.E85163@dark4ce.com> <20011018014751.A42500@xor.obsecurity.org> <20011019172854.G85163@dark4ce.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:28:54PM +0200, Hanno Liem wrote: > > 2.1 Understanding the Vulnerability > > 4.4BSD procfs implementation has been broken since the beginning, but t= he > > final blow came from jail(2). The buffer overflow happens when a jail h= as > > been setup with a long hostname (up to 255 bytes) or huge gids are used= , and > > a program's status is read through procfs.=20 >=20 > I took a printout of the article with me on a trip to the UK, and had some > time to read it in detail. I realise that it is quite old (>6 months) and > could very well be outdated. 4.4BSD was released 8 years ago. This buffer overflow was reported to us and fixed last year. Kris --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE70FRLWry0BWjoQKURAg+WAJ9l47HBrzGZTgNKmXeQQ4KquHxj3QCfevGa t3XWxYn4Dv6kLlzZ+vgt0rU= =IMhV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20011019092652.A62301>